Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41411158›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026

Assessing the Chemical Intelligence of Large Language Models.

Nicholas T Runcie, Charlotte M Deane, Fergus Imrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicholas T RuncieDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K.ORCID 0009-0008-8324-5658
Charlotte M DeaneDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-1388-2252
Fergus ImrieDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-6241-0123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large Language Models are versatile, general-purpose tools with a wide range of applications. Recently, the advent of "reasoning models" has led to substantial improvements in their abilities in advanced problem-solving domains such as mathematics and software engineering. In this work, we assessed the ability of reasoning models to perform chemistry tasks directly, without any assistance from external tools. We created a novel benchmark, called ChemIQ, consisting of 816 questions assessing core concepts in organic chemistry, focused on molecular comprehension and chemical reasoning. Unlike previous benchmarks, which primarily use multiple choice formats, our approach requires models to construct short-answer responses, more closely reflecting real-world applications. The reasoning models, OpenAI's o3-mini, Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro, and DeepSeek R1, answered 50%-57% of questions correctly in their highest reasoning modes, with higher reasoning levels significantly increasing performance on all tasks. These models substantially outperformed the nonreasoning models which achieved only 3%-7% accuracy. We found that Large Language Models can now convert SMILES strings to IUPAC names, a task earlier models were unable to perform. Additionally, we show that the latest reasoning models can elucidate structures from 1D and 2D

Indexed as

CheminformaticsLanguageHumansLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID41411158
PMCPMC12801315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.